When Government silences the opposition

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.293.0.pdf

Although this case is still relatively young, and at this stage the Court is only examining it in terms of Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits, the evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth."

I get it, Judge Doughty was appointed by the predecessor. And I haven't had a case before him, yet. From what I understand, though, he is a fair Judge who works hard to get things correct. I have no reason to think this is a sham order, particularly given the voluminous record before him.

@AU9377 @TexasTigeras fair minded and reasonable dudes (even though we tend to come out on opposite sides of the ledger), I am particularly interested in your thoughts.

[TexasTiger 12,897]

34 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.293.0.pdf

Although this case is still relatively young, and at this stage the Court is only examining it in terms of Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits, the evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth."

I get it, Judge Doughty was appointed by the predecessor. And I haven't had a case before him, yet. From what I understand, though, he is a fair Judge who works hard to get things correct. I have no reason to think this is a sham order, particularly given the voluminous record before him.

@AU9377 @TexasTigeras fair minded and reasonable dudes (even though we tend to come out on opposite sides of the ledger), I am particularly interested in your thoughts.

I’m probably not going to read 155 pages, but I think the question likely goes to what specific things the government did and were they truly coercive or did their requests seem reasonable to the platforms who ultimately decided what to do.

[AU9377 4,935]

5 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.293.0.pdf

Although this case is still relatively young, and at this stage the Court is only examining it in terms of Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits, the evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth."

I get it, Judge Doughty was appointed by the predecessor. And I haven't had a case before him, yet. From what I understand, though, he is a fair Judge who works hard to get things correct. I have no reason to think this is a sham order, particularly given the voluminous record before him.

@AU9377 @TexasTigeras fair minded and reasonable dudes (even though we tend to come out on opposite sides of the ledger), I am particularly interested in your thoughts.

At first glance, the initial problem I see is that the 1st Amendment forbids government laws being enacted and enforced prohibiting free speech or interfering with the same.  The complaint alleges that the executive branch met with, requested and then coerced social media platforms.  The state of Missouri is plaintiff without the parties that were allegedly coerced being parties to the litigation.   

I don't see it as a sham order, but the issuing of an injunction isn't a guarantee that the plaintiff will prevail.  I haven't read it all, but there could be an issue of standing come into play as this works itself up thru the appellate courts.  Government agencies meet with private sector businesses every day.  The issue could come down to proving the degree of coercion.  For that, they will need the social media platforms to assist.  Without it, proving that will be tough.

[DKW 86 7,425]

8 hours ago, AU9377 said:

At first glance, the initial problem I see is that the 1st Amendment forbids government laws being enacted and enforced prohibiting free speech or interfering with the same.  The complaint alleges that the executive branch met with, requested and then coerced social media platforms.  The state of Missouri is plaintiff without the parties that were allegedly coerced being parties to the litigation.   

I don't see it as a sham order, but the issuing of an injunction isn't a guarantee that the plaintiff will prevail.  I haven't read it all, but there could be an issue of standing come into play as this works itself up thru the appellate courts.  Government agencies meet with private sector businesses every day.  The issue could come down to proving the degree of coercion.  For that, they will need the social media platforms to assist.  Without it, proving that will be tough.

And so you are siding with govt over Constitutional Free Speech and Privacy Rights?

[TexasTiger 12,897]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

And so you are siding with govt over Constitutional Free Speech and Privacy Rights?

You’re not following at all. Best to keep the reactionary reactions to yourself.

[AU9377 4,935]

3 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

And so you are siding with govt over Constitutional Free Speech and Privacy Rights?

I was simply doing a quick analysis of THIS CASE.  The plaintiffs in this particular case will need to show more than the government requesting that a private company exercise their discretion and not allow misinformation on their platforms.  In no way does that statement suggest that I don't support "Constitutional Free Speech and Privacy Rights."

If I asked the same of you, I suppose that would mean that you support the spreading of false information with no regard for the consequences resulting from people relying on that information.  I don't think you believe that there is no responsibility on the part of these platforms for any moderation whatsoever, but I could be wrong.

Edited July 14, 2023 by AU9377

[homersapien 11,379]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

If I asked the same of you, I suppose that would mean that you support the spreading of false information with no regard for the consequences resulting from people relying on that information.  I don't think you believe that there is no responsibility on the part of these platforms for any moderation whatsoever, but I could be wrong.

And one of the responsibilities of government is to protect the people.

If a media site is promoting information that could be harmful, the government has a responsibility to at least inform them of that harm and ask them to be more responsible, even if they can't force them to remove it.

 

[DKW 86 7,425]

On 7/14/2023 at 7:39 AM, TexasTiger said:

You’re not following at all. Best to keep the reactionary reactions to yourself.

No, I am talking over your head apparently. You say openly that you want govt over Constitutional Free Speech and Privacy Rights.

I disagree.

[DKW 86 7,425]

On 7/14/2023 at 9:31 AM, AU9377 said:

I was simply doing a quick analysis of THIS CASE.  The plaintiffs in this particular case will need to show more than the government requesting that a private company exercise their discretion and not allow misinformation on their platforms.  In no way does that statement suggest that I don't support "Constitutional Free Speech and Privacy Rights."

If I asked the same of you, I suppose that would mean that you support the spreading of false information with no regard for the consequences resulting from people relying on that information.  I don't think you believe that there is no responsibility on the part of these platforms for any moderation whatsoever, but I could be wrong.

It is a caveat emptor world out there. ANY govt agency interfering with Free Speech is always wrong and unConstitutional.

[TexasTiger 12,897]

59 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

No, I am talking over your head apparently. You say openly that you want govt over Constitutional Free Speech and Privacy Rights.

I disagree.

I’ve yet to find a legal concept you grasp.

[DKW 86 7,425]

On 7/14/2023 at 11:06 AM, homersapien said:

And one of the responsibilities of government is to protect the people.

If a media site is promoting information that could be harmful, the government has a responsibility to at least inform them of that harm and ask them to be more responsible, even if they can't force them to remove it.

Completely 100% Wrong. It is up to the Individual to Police what they read etc. It is not the responsibility of the govt to even get involved in that 1%. If the govt is involved with it, it will ultimately go sideways. It will always be a subjective standard and that makes it corruptible. It is the slippery slope that gave us Nazism. Letting the govt rule What is Truth is always always always wrong.

Edited July 16, 2023 by DKW 86

[LPTiger 5,166]

On 7/14/2023 at 11:06 AM, homersapien said:

And one of the responsibilities of government is to protect the people.

If a media site is promoting information that could be harmful, the government has a responsibility to at least inform them of that harm and ask them to be more responsible, even if they can't force them to remove it.

 

Homer, your statement"could be harmful" is to overboard ti withstand constitutional scrutiny.    The court has been clear that the threat must be one of "clear and present" danger.    I know you are speaking about informing and asking, but that creates a chilling effect.   The government should not be issuing advisory opinions in matters involving free speech or else the speech is not truly free.

[AU9377 4,935]

On 7/15/2023 at 3:43 PM, DKW 86 said:

It is a caveat emptor world out there. ANY govt agency interfering with Free Speech is always wrong and unConstitutional.

Interfering and requesting responsible action on the part of private enterprise is not one in the same.  Like I have said before, I wish that we were intelligent enough as a population overall to understand that every crack pot on Youtube or Twitter's platform shouldn't be respected to the same degree.  The fact that someone is not part of a government agency does not make them correct.  The fact that someone is part of a government agency doesn't make them corrupt. 

The idea that there is no such thing as a baseline of facts, upon which we can then debate and chart the best possible path forward, is a crippling concept. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

Interfering and requesting responsible action on the part of private enterprise is not one in the same.

Would you agree that this case in particular, at the very least, opens itself to a slippery slope?

[AU9377 4,935]

21 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Would you agree that this case in particular, at the very least, opens itself to a slippery slope?

It is a fair argument, but I'm not sure that this case is  best suited to address that possibility.  If, for example, Twitter was the plaintiff in the complaint, and they alleged the government placed some sort of demands and threatened action if they didn't comply, then yes. 

I could be missing something, because I haven't looked at this in depth.

[TexasTiger 12,897]

41 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

It is a fair argument, but I'm not sure that this case is  best suited to address that possibility.  If, for example, Twitter was the plaintiff in the complaint, and they alleged the government placed some sort of demands and threatened action if they didn't comply, then yes. 

I could be missing something, because I haven't looked at this in depth.

Exactly. 

[DKW 86 7,425]

2 hours ago, AU9377 said:

It is a fair argument, but I'm not sure that this case is  best suited to address that possibility.  If, for example, Twitter was the plaintiff in the complaint, and they alleged the government placed some sort of demands and threatened action if they didn't comply, then yes. 

I could be missing something, because I haven't looked at this in depth.

Wait, you don’t think that the Govt demanded and got action from Twitter? That they didn’t offer to pay and indeed did pay Twitter for actions? 
 

Crack is a helluva drug. 

[TexasTiger 12,897]

4 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

 
 

Crack is a helluva drug. 

I know it's been tough for you.

[AU9377 4,935]

18 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Wait, you don’t think that the Govt demanded and got action from Twitter? That they didn’t offer to pay and indeed did pay Twitter for actions? 
 

Crack is a helluva drug. 

Is Twitter a party to this complaint?

[DKW 86 7,425]

3 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

I know it's been tough for you.

 

3 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Is Twitter a party to this complaint?

And none of that makes my take one iota less true.

[homersapien 11,379]

On 7/16/2023 at 9:44 AM, DKW 86 said:

Completely 100% Wrong. It is up to the Individual to Police what they read etc. It is not the responsibility of the govt to even get involved in that 1%. If the govt is involved with it, it will ultimately go sideways. It will always be a subjective standard and that makes it corruptible. It is the slippery slope that gave us Nazism. Letting the govt rule What is Truth is always always always wrong.

If you read my post a little more carefully, I didn't say the government had control or veto power over what the media is doing.

I said they had a responsibility to contact the media and at least point out the potential harm - of which they may know a lot more about than the media outlet.

[homersapien 11,379]

On 7/16/2023 at 12:02 PM, LPTiger said:

Homer, your statement"could be harmful" is to overboard ti withstand constitutional scrutiny.    The court has been clear that the threat must be one of "clear and present" danger.    I know you are speaking about informing and asking, but that creates a chilling effect.   The government should not be issuing advisory opinions in matters involving free speech or else the speech is not truly free.

If you read my post a little more carefully, I didn't say the government had control or veto power over what the media is doing.

I said they had a responsibility to contact the media and at least point out the potential harm - of which they may know a lot more about than the media outlet.

[homersapien 11,379]

Living in a fact-free world is anarchy, which can be worse than tyranny. 

[DKW 86 7,425]

18 hours ago, homersapien said:

If you read my post a little more carefully, I didn't say the government had control or veto power over what the media is doing.

I said they had a responsibility to contact the media and at least point out the potential harm - of which they may know a lot more about than the media outlet.

That very contact is going to change everything. The contact is corrupting. 

[TexasTiger 12,897]

37 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

That very contact is going to change everything. The contact is corrupting. 

David— during a military operation if government asks media that’s become aware of troop movements to not share that information, is that corrupting?